"The CCMD sets the priorities and provides general tasking...". All plans and their pieces flow from this authority level. Title 10 operations and campaigns - which I believe will become increasingly important - are born here. The point I was making is our component cyber activities cost more time and effort than standard Title 10 operations (conventional). Something conventional goes from COCOM - Component - to units assigned for execution (everything in the life lines of the same COCOM). Incorporation of cyber seems a different story, as it requires coordination between COCOMs (CYBERCOM and another), special authorities, and SROE which complicate and slow the process (already slow enough) relative to operations without cyber. My concern is that the pace of world events move at such a speed that the processes we have are not able to keep pace. Unifying C2 of cyber with conventional efforts, simplifying and reducing the number of processes can generate a more efficient, flexible response with less cost.

As for owning mission - after more thought, I can easily concede we own mission. But, in a Title 10 context those missions presumably are part of a broader operation (maybe owned by the other COCOM). We don't want the missions we own to lag behind, as doing so risks their marginalization/applicability to the operation/campaign and/or increases the time/effort required to execute the broader operation. We put forth tremendous effort to ensure this doesn't happen - perhaps there is a better way. To FCC/C10F credit, I do see efforts to move elements out forward, and I think this could help a bit.

Title 50 operations are a different animal entirely where the authorities are self contained with CYBERCOM/NSA.

yoshi wrote:"The CCMD sets the priorities and provides general tasking...". All plans and their pieces flow from this authority level. Title 10 operations and campaigns - which I believe will become increasingly important - are born here. The point I was making is our component cyber activities cost more time and effort than standard Title 10 operations (conventional). Something conventional goes from COCOM - Component - to units assigned for execution (everything in the life lines of the same COCOM). Incorporation of cyber seems a different story, as it requires coordination between COCOMs (CYBERCOM and another), special authorities, and SROE which complicate and slow the process (already slow enough) relative to operations without cyber. My concern is that the pace of world events move at such a speed that the processes we have are not able to keep pace. Unifying C2 of cyber with conventional efforts, simplifying and reducing the number of processes can generate a more efficient, flexible response with less cost.

As for owning mission - after more thought, I can easily concede we own mission. But, in a Title 10 context those missions presumably are part of a broader operation (maybe owned by the other COCOM). We don't want the missions we own to lag behind, as doing so risks their marginalization/applicability to the operation/campaign and/or increases the time/effort required to execute the broader operation. We put forth tremendous effort to ensure this doesn't happen - perhaps there is a better way. To FCC/C10F credit, I do see efforts to move elements out forward, and I think this could help a bit.

Title 50 operations are a different animal entirely where the authorities are self contained with CYBERCOM/NSA.

We're jacking with the original title/purpose of this thread, but we're on a roll... so I say we keep going!

All good points, but the missing piece isn't authorities - we've received or are getting those - but rather self-imposed process hurdles. I have no idea how USCYBERCOM operates, and it often appears as if they don't, either. But their internal processes seem to take a relatively simple operation and grind it to a halt while a simple CONOP goes into their approval process. Maybe we'll see it in 45 days, but more likely you're talking 60-90 days, if ever.

National/DoD policy also must catch up to reality for us to have meaningful (and TIMELY) impact. I can tell you people at the Congressional and NSC level understand policy is an impediment to progress and are working to fix it, but how do you tell a CTN3 that when all she/he wants to do is flex the skills they've learned through lots of blood, sweat, and tears?

This is also the reason why the NSA is, and will likely continue to be, crucially important to us and how we conduct cyber. They worked through these issues 50 years ago, and more recently over the last couple of decades with cyber. Why the DoD (through CYBERCOM) chose to ignore that and blaze their own trail continues to confound most of my senior level colleagues.

I'm bumping this again because I went back and reread the first few posts and thought something needs to be clarified.

Taking a JDAL billet with a (most likely) three year lockdown in a place is NOT/NOT the only way to get Joint credit.

Besides a JDAL, you can submit to Joint Staff, through our service POC, a request to be given E-JDA (experience) credit for time served where the preponderance of your duties involved "Joint Matters." This is in lieu of the typical S-JDS billet, which is what we're referring to when we say a JDAL billet.

Sum1 wrote:Taking a JDAL billet with a (most likely) three year lockdown in a place is NOT/NOT the only way to get Joint credit.

This was actually recently changed. DTM 17-005 reduced the hard and fast requirement from 36 months to 24 months. NPC just updated the JDAL MILPERSMAN indicating that the tour will be written for 36 months, but you can roll earlier and still get credit as long as you were there for more than 24 months.

Keep in mind that TAD of 30 days or more away from the tour, to include getting JPME training does not count towards the 24 months requirement.

I'm sure your mileage may vary, but figured that this would be good gouge to propagate.

Sum1 wrote:Taking a JDAL billet with a (most likely) three year lockdown in a place is NOT/NOT the only way to get Joint credit.

This was actually recently changed. DTM 17-005 reduced the hard and fast requirement from 36 months to 24 months. NPC just updated the JDAL MILPERSMAN indicating that the tour will be written for 36 months, but you can roll earlier and still get credit as long as you were there for more than 24 months.

Keep in mind that TAD of 30 days or more away from the tour, to include getting JPME training does not count towards the 24 months requirement.

I'm sure your mileage may vary, but figured that this would be good gouge to propagate.

I know that in the past you could have the JDAL tour length waivered down to 22.5 months if there is an urgent need while still getting the officer full joint tour credit. An F-18 pilot colleague had this happen when he was selected for command. He left early to start his command track training.

Thanks for sharing the DTM. I was unaware of that! I just wanted to make sure people didn't read this and think the only way to get Joint was to get lucky on getting a JDAL for your MS.

Sum1 wrote:Taking a JDAL billet with a (most likely) three year lockdown in a place is NOT/NOT the only way to get Joint credit.

This was actually recently changed. DTM 17-005 reduced the hard and fast requirement from 36 months to 24 months. NPC just updated the JDAL MILPERSMAN indicating that the tour will be written for 36 months, but you can roll earlier and still get credit as long as you were there for more than 24 months.

Keep in mind that TAD of 30 days or more away from the tour, to include getting JPME training does not count towards the 24 months requirement.

I'm sure your mileage may vary, but figured that this would be good gouge to propagate.

I know that in the past you could have the JDAL tour length waivered down to 22.5 months if there is an urgent need while still getting the officer full joint tour credit. An F-18 pilot colleague had this happen when he was selected for command. He left early to start his command track training.

Thanks for sharing the DTM. I was unaware of that! I just wanted to make sure people didn't read this and think the only way to get Joint was to get lucky on getting a JDAL for your MS.

I'd also point out that the self-nomination process has very high standards. While you might think you are working in a joint environment, the board might not, therefore disapproving your request.

I was lucky and was able to max-out my joint credit points at the LT-level all through self-nomination.

Sum1 wrote:I know that in the past you could have the JDAL tour length waivered down to 22.5 months if there is an urgent need while still getting the officer full joint tour credit. An F-18 pilot colleague had this happen when he was selected for command. He left early to start his command track training.

Thanks for sharing the DTM. I was unaware of that! I just wanted to make sure people didn't read this and think the only way to get Joint was to get lucky on getting a JDAL for your MS.

I'd also point out that the self-nomination process has very high standards. While you might think you are working in a joint environment, the board might not, therefore disapproving your request.

I was lucky and was able to max-out my joint credit points at the LT-level all through self-nomination.

Coupled with JPME-1, I earned the JQ2 AQD.

I'm on the exact same track. I have 2.5 months of credit from joint training completed on the way to my command and 22+ months serving there as an IO and cyber planner. I'm on the way to NWC for JPME I... so I can learn how to be joint. The irony of learning the joint world after living and breathing it for 3+ years isn't lost on me.

Key to the self nomination is making sure you've thoroughly reviewed the documents describing "Joint Matters" and making sure your FITREPs and awards highlight this work. If you've done that, the self nomination process is very straightforward.

0

Last edited by Sum1 on Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

While self-nomination is one method to obtain Joint Credit, after serving on multiple 4-star Staffs to include a COCOM, the actual experience is phenomenal. The ability to understand and participate in the planning as well as Senior-level discussion on major topics has served me well; additionally the Staff experience is critical to those wishing to obtain senior rank (re: O5-O6) as it helps in understanding how to format and portray information for senior leaders. I highly encourage my officers to seek out COCOM opportunities because of the PRODEV aspects (plus possible geographical ones, like Europe, as well).

20yearman wrote:While self-nomination is one method to obtain Joint Credit, after serving on multiple 4-star Staffs to include a COCOM, the actual experience is phenomenal. The ability to understand and participate in the planning as well as Senior-level discussion on major topics has served me well; additionally the Staff experience is critical to those wishing to obtain senior rank (re: O5-O6) as it helps in understanding how to format and portray information for senior leaders. I highly encourage my officers to seek out COCOM opportunities because of the PRODEV aspects (plus possible geographical ones, like Europe, as well).

1000% agree. The last 3+ years has been full of incredible personal and professional opportunities, and the experience gained here will serve me well no matter what job I find myself doing. I would absolutely foot-stomp the overseas opportunities, as well. Many of us get opportunities to travel in conjunction with work (deployments, TADs, etc.), but living in another country's culture for a period if time is an invaluable experience. It makes you appreciate what we have in the U.S., and also very clearly highlights where we fall pitifully short and need to improve.